A groundbreaking legislative proposal aims to reshape the highest court in the land, potentially altering its composition and operations for generations to come.
According to DC News Now, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has introduced the Judicial Modernization and Transparency Act, a bill designed to bring significant changes to the Supreme Court.
The bill's most notable provision calls for expanding the Supreme Court from its current nine justices to fifteen. This expansion would occur gradually over the course of three presidential terms, with the president appointing one nominee in the first and third years of each term.
Expanding Court And Increasing Accountability
In addition to increasing the number of justices, the bill proposes several measures aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability within the court. One such measure would require the Internal Revenue Service to audit each justice's income tax return and make these returns public.
The legislation also seeks to implement a more structured nomination process. If 180 days pass between a nomination and any significant action, the bill would trigger an automatic scheduling of a vote on the nominee. This provision aims to prevent prolonged delays in the appointment process.
Another key aspect of the bill involves the creation of a mechanism allowing justices to vote on recusing a fellow justice from a case. This measure is designed to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest among Supreme Court members.
Restructuring Judicial Circuits And Decision-Making
Wyden's bill proposes several structural changes to the federal judiciary. It calls for a return to the practice of assigning a justice to oversee each circuit court. Additionally, the legislation suggests expanding the number of circuits by splitting the Ninth Circuit and creating a new Southwestern Circuit.
A significant provision in the bill would require a supermajority of justices to overturn acts of Congress. This change could potentially limit the court's power to strike down legislation, altering the balance between the judicial and legislative branches.
The bill also aims to increase public access to the court's proceedings and decisions. It includes provisions for making opinions more readily available to the public, potentially enhancing transparency in the court's decision-making process.
Motivation And Political Context
Senator Wyden explained the rationale behind his proposed reforms, stating:
The Supreme Court is in crisis and bold solutions are necessary to restore the public trust. More transparency, more accountability and more checks on a power hungry Supreme Court are just what the American people are asking for.
The introduction of this bill comes amid growing concerns about ethics and transparency in the Supreme Court. Recent controversies, such as the undisclosed luxury trips taken by Justice Clarence Thomas with a GOP megadonor, have fueled debates about the need for stricter ethical guidelines for justices.
While Wyden acknowledges that the bill is unlikely to pass in its entirety, he hopes that portions of it will eventually be implemented to bring about "some balance" in the court's operations and public perception.
The proposed legislation has already sparked debate among lawmakers, legal experts, and the public. Supporters argue that these reforms are necessary to restore faith in the judiciary, while critics contend that such changes could politicize the court further and undermine its independence.
Michael Zona, a spokesperson for GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, expressed concern about the motivations behind the bill:
It's concerning that Senator Wyden is abusing his committee's powers as part of a politically motivated campaign against the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
Senator Wyden's Judicial Modernization and Transparency Act proposes substantial reforms to the Supreme Court, including expanding its size to fifteen justices and implementing new transparency measures. The bill aims to address perceived issues of legitimacy and accountability within the court. While the legislation faces significant hurdles to passage, it has reignited discussions about the role and structure of the nation's highest court in contemporary American democracy.
